While I couldn’t help but snicker at the sophomoric sit-in on Capitol Hill, I’m still shaking my head at those who overlook Constitutional protections that go beyond the Second Amendment.

An attorney who’s a non-gun owner frames the issues – and the rampant  hypocrisy – very well. http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/06/23/bringing-down-the-house/#comments .

Thanks to Erich, an attorney and regular contributor here, for bringing that powerful essay to our attention.

20 COMMENTS

  2. Sorry…it appears that the link I gave is wonky. Looks like you can still search on medium.com by the author’s name, Yishan Wong, and get to the article.

  3. Am I the only one who immediately thinks of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” when they show a picture of Rep. John Lewis on TV? When the pictures of the dem’s sitting down, slowly, with obvious age induced reluctance, on the House floor, and they zeroed the camera in on him, it popped into my mind “Geriatric Mutant ‘Ginsu’ Turtle”. Oh well, I didn’t age exactly like I wanted either.

    Back to the thread. Of course this childish display had nothing to do with adding “no fly/no buy” (see, I am already using their catchy phrase) to the list of 2A restrictions. Amazingly, SCOTUS liberal Justices, in their ruling to strike down Texas’ abortion clinic limitations, wrote that the “right for an abortion” cannot be restricted (a “right” built by twisting the constitutional right to privacy) if it can be construed to restrict that right. Yet, they always talk of “common sense restrictions” on enumerated constitutional rights such as the 2A.

    Beware, the liberal democrats are already, through their various State Attorney’s General, threatening arrests of folks whose speech is in opposition to their ideology. Eventually a case based on such an unconstitutonal arrest will make it to the Supremes.

    Folks, we are seeing played out before our eyes the future of our country, if the next president is Hillary Clinton. Our future hinges on the type of SCOTUS justices nominated. In my eyes, this is the number one issue in this election.

  4. Methinks they don’t actually want their efforts to succeed: waving the “GUNS!” boogeyman is a wonderfully effective political tool. That’s why they conveniently overlook the fact that Omar got his gun via background check despite being on FBI watch lists et al, and conveniently label the incident as the worst mass _shooting_ instead of, say, the worst mass _murder_ (3000+ dead via boxcutters @ 9/11, 87 dead via gasoline @ Happy Land nightclub). Of course they’re objectively wrong in effectiveness, relevance, and redundancy of what they’re proposing. It’s just a great way to rally the troops, to portray themselves as the righteous minority, and to invoke the implications of If We Just Had More Power™. They’ve already passed much of their demands (see aforementioned background checks), so they have to ignore that…but ignoring your successes so you can redundantly repeat them doesn’t go very far. They can’t abide actually succeeding, as doing so would eliminate such an effective rallying cry & vote attractor & fundraising tool.

    As noted, they _could_ have passed darned near anything they wanted in the Obama’s first two years. They didn’t – for a reason. Success, as they portray, would work them out of a job.

    – CTD, LFI-IV

  5. Jaji – This should work: https://medium.com/@yishan/you-cannot-regulate-guns-unless-you-know-how-to-use-one-d129d0a82974

    Interesting that shows up at the same time Salon likewise runs a “can’t win thru ignorance” piece at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/the_media_keeps_misfiring_when_it_writes_about_guns.html

    Could be the start of a wider push: realizing that rank ignorance can’t win, so start educating supporters…but carefully, so they come to a particular conclusion. I’ve long held that regardless of your view on a subject, you should understand the opposing view well enough to present a winning case for either side. Maybe they’re wising up to the fact that being stupid won’t get them far. (Of course this completely conflicts with my adjacent post, but inconsistency is the norm in politics.)

    – CTD, LFI-IV

  6. If the gun-bigots had a majority in congress, does anyone think a semi-auto and magazine ban would not be passed and signed into ‘law’ by Friday?

    It’s not just rifles. Haven’t you heard, they are now calling your Glocks: “assault pistols.”

    If for only the Supreme Court, we all must vote for DONALD TRUMP.

    Here is a short video in their own words about what is coming:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zouRCRI3FQ

  8. In a previous blog, Mas mentioned the 10% – 80% – 10% concept. In effect, saying that 10% of the population is strongly pro-firearm ownership, 80% wavers in the middle, and 10% is hardcore anti-gun.

    This is (IMHO) the wrong way of looking at it. A more correct way is to consider it like a coin toss. In any particular toss, the coin might be heads or it might be tails but, over millions of tosses, the odds even out to 50/50.

    It is EXACTLY the same thing with the gun control issue. Liberalism springs from a belief that all humans are innately good. This gives rise to a mindset that seeks to always blame exterior factors (poverty, ignorance, racism, drug abuse, availability of “weapons of war”, etc.) for the evil in the world. Conservatism is the other side of the coin. It springs from a belief that humans are flawed creatures with evil arising from the human heart. This gives rise to a mindset that seeks to install a moral code of behavior so as to regulate and control the dark side of human nature.

    Just as with a coin toss, there are only two options. Heads or tails. Humans are good or humans are evil. Liberalism or conservatism. Over a population of millions of people, the odds even out to 50/50 with half the population leaning to the left and half leaning to the right. The only difference is in how strongly an individual leans in a particular direction.

    Gun control is an issue that perfectly polarizes along the left-wing / right-wing fault line. 50% of the population (the Leftists) “feel” that gun control is likely to work with 10% have true faith in the healing power of gun control. In other words, they are the hardcore gun-grabbers who believe with religious fervor. The Right mirrors this with 50% “feeling” that gun control won’t work and 10% being certain that it is total (and dangerous) B.S.

    The result is a constant stalemate on gun control. The NRA and the 2nd Amendment are strong enough to prevent the gun-grabbers from total implementation of the left-wing disarmament dream but are not strong enough to shut the issue down and discredit the gun-grabber movement. The gun-grabbers are not strong enough to repeal the 2nd Amendment and achieve the “final solution” of which they dream (universal disarmament of the American population), but they have their friends in the media and academia on their side and (as Mas illustrates above) are working constantly to debase and undermine the 2A.

    The 2A, itself, is vague enough that a leftist court can interpret it just about any way it wants. We see them working daily to undermine the Heller decision.
    My own view is that, if the republicans ever hold both houses and the Presidency, then they should propose another amendment to the constitution. This new amendment would supplement the 2A. It would (a) clarify once and for all that firearm ownership is an individual right, (b) to require full faith and credit of this right by all the States, and (c) clearly (in rock hard language written so as to be impossible to misinterpret) state the acceptable limits of gun control.

    The fact is that many of the limits already in place (keeping guns out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill, etc.) have broad support. A well written amendment that includes guarantees for gun owners but also enough responsible limits (to satisfy the moderate leftists – nothing but complete disarmament would satisfy the radical left) could probably get the 2/3 support it needs in both houses if under Republican control at the time. With the right effort, it could also get support from ¾ of the States and be adopted.

    The 2nd Amendment combined with the clarity provided by the new amendment (if well written) would be enough to stop the current “legislating from the bench” and move the gun control debate into settled law. The NRA could go back to being a pure shooter’s organization and the gun control groups could fade into history where they belong.

    It is my belief that, due to the left/right split on the issue, the gun control issue can never be settled based upon the Constitution and 2A as they currently stand. Not with the gun-grabbers twisting them like a pretzel. Only a tightly written new amendment (that leaves no room for legal word-twisting) will finally put this issue to rest.

    I don’t expect to see it resolved within my lifetime.

  9. Rule of Thumb: If the NRA and the ACLU both oppose a law, it’s a bad law.

    Regardless of where you stand on gun rights/gun control, the idea that a single government employee can put your name on a secret list, not just without any legal process, not just without giving you a chance to protest, but apparently without even any administrative oversight, should be scary. The idea that the list then keeps you from exercising rights, whether to travel or purchase a firearm, should be terrifying.
    Did we learn nothing from the USSR, or Joe McCarthy?

  10. Just for the record, I oppose the listing of American citizens who have not been convicted of any crime on the no-fly list and terrorist lists on Constitutional grounds to the extent that such listing interferes with any lawful activity in which they can otherwise engage. I therefore also oppose the extension of those listings to gun purchases.

    As a gun-owning and gun-knowledgeable liberal, I also agree with the logic and message of the medium.com piece (though I find the tone of the article curiously aggressive).

    As for “shaking my head at those who overlook Constitutional protections”, my head shaking on a parallel topic ended Monday with the Supremes striking down Texas’ abortion restrictions based on the pathetically-transparent excuse that they were enacted to protect the health of the mother.

  11. Mas, thanks for this. I shared the link with my liberal daughters (I failed as a parent! (Not really, they do think for themselves even if it sometimes Ps me off!)) I also shared the working link to the article Jaji wrote about. Another good read for us all.

    Both are good tools to penetrate the hard shell of those convinced without facts.

    Thanks again from an LFI graduate.
    John

  13. It’s interesting to read these comments of a learned constitutional scholar who is _not_ a “gun guy” – thank you, Mas, for putting them into wider circulation.

  14. @ Dave(the Liberal, non-Uncle one): My Brooklyn-born and Upper-West-Side- Manhattan raised wife was the one who pointed out that medium.com article to me as something she could agree with also; she can now be called a gun-owning and -knowledgeable liberal as well. I didn’t see that author’s tone so much as aggressive as tired of arguing with morons who wouldn’t know reality if it bit them on the butt. Case in point was one of the comments/replies to that article on that page was one mental giant parroting the “All semi-auto firearms can me made fully automatic with info you find on the Internet”. Seriously, how can you argue rationally with someone who is actually that stupid? That guy is not “ignorant” because ignorance is cured through education…and no amount of education could penetrate a skull that numb.

    @ LarryA: We use a rule in our house that if my MIL and I agree something is a bad law (like the health “care” law) it’s a bad law. 🙂

    @ Carl Donath: Thanks for the functional link. I saved the entire article myself because know things disappear from the ‘net, but others would still like to see that link

  15. Mr. Wong makes a good point in that he needs to help educate folks about guns before they start advocating gun control.

    I would suggest that he also get to know the kind of folks who want to do the regulating, and see just how “reasonable” they are, before he follows their lead. He might find that they don’t consider his guns so “reasonable,” either.

  16. Liberal Dave,

    I agree the Texans should simply say they want as few abortions in Texas as possible. They should not sound like politicians and say they did it for the health of the mother. I believe Mississippi only has one abortion clinic in the whole state.

    I’ve said it before, but here I go again. A lot of these controversial issues could be settled if we simply let the states vote on them. We try to have “one-size fits all” laws from Washington DC, and try to force those laws on 330 million diverse people in 50 states. We need diverse laws for diverse people.

    Unity is an illusion. We can unite against a common enemy, but we can’t unite on much else. I suppose a common language, money system, and traffic laws are good to have. All states don’t need to agree on abortion, guns or legalizing marijuana.

  17. While the points made in the “Simple Justice” article are sound and valid, I am afraid that the worldview in this article is still strongly left-wing. In fact, so is the one referenced in medium.com.

    I suppose it is at least some progress in that those with a left-wing worldview are at least willing to admit some of the hypocrisy and ignorance deeply embedded in their view of 2nd Amendment Rights.

    Nevertheless, their overall worldview is leftist. Consider, for example, the following line from the “Simple Justice” article:

    “As regular SJ readers know, I’m neither a gun owner nor an ally of gun aficionados. If there were no guns around, I would sleep just fine.”

    This line says it all, doesn’t it? It encompasses the left-wing worldview that the world would be a “better place” without guns. A place where one could “rest easy”.

    This is a view that can only exist in the left-wing dream-space because it has no relation to reality.

    Would the world be a “better place” without guns? Every left-wing liberal currently living apparently assumes so. Yet, we know the history of the world prior to the invention of firearms. It was not the peaceful paradise that the leftists assume. It was the world of the Roman legions where children were fed to lions in an arena for the amusement of the crowds. It was the world of Genghis Khan who’s hoards slaughtered millions. It was the world where Vikings descended upon coastal towns to rape and loot and pillage.

    It was a world where, despite the lack of firearms, tens of thousands would die in battle. In fact, some of the bloodiest battles in history were fought prior to the invention of firearms. Consider the Chinese Battle of Fei River which occurred in November of 383 AD. No firearms were present since gunpowder would not be invented for roughly 600 more years. Yet, it is estimated that the death toll from this one battle exceeded 700,000.

    Perhaps this Scott Greenfield, and other leftists, think that they would sleep better in a world without firearms but, I can assure you, I would not. I guess that, in such a world, I would sleep lightly with a sharp sword by my side!

  19. I’ve said it before, but here I go again. A lot of these controversial issues could be settled if we simply let the states vote on them. We try to have “one-size fits all” laws from Washington DC, and try to force those laws on 330 million diverse people in 50 states. We need diverse laws for diverse people.-Roger Wilco

    “Those powers not specifically enumerated are reserved to the states.”

    The founders never anticipated a world where some citizens were rabidly in favor of killing the unborn. Therefore, Roe v. Wade should be overturned as the ravings of an activist court set on finding some way, ANY WAY of shoehorning abortion into the Constitution.

    What they DID foresee is a world where a runaway, all powerful central government (such as the one they just overthrew) would try to restrict and/or eliminate private firearms ownership. Thus they provided future generations with the means to resist that government. The 2A has NOTHING to do with hunting.

    Never try to use reason, logic and facts when arguing with an emotion driven, knee jerk reactionary, ie, a liberal. It is pointless and will only result in frustration as they will use their stupidity to drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

    And yes, the sit in by the Congressional Democrats was the action of a bunch of petulant children. But sitting on their asses and doing nothing is what they do best. Shooting video and photographing their temper tantrum and advertising it far and wide is the best thing to do. It should embarrass them as it would any rational person, but it won’t.
    They are just too stupid to effect that way.

  20. Excellent article Mas, thanks for the link!

    P.S. –
    Thanks also for all the comments to read and all folks but bro, that Wong article link is whack.
    It’s like this guy just googled something like “What Firearms Owners wished antis knew about guns” and morphed that into a sick piece of lieberal propaganda melded in with the other weird viewpoints lieberals work on normalizing… Miserable. Reads like garbage time content to fill a spot on a rag site for a cheap buck. Two Thumbs Down.

    Stark contrast with this great blog Mas runs here. Best wishes to all!

Comments are closed.